Re: [wmx] newbie questions

Damion Yates wrote:

> On Wed, 2 May 2001 lcommons@att.net wrote:
>> Is it fair to say that using wmx instead will work better on a
>>memory-constrained system?


wmx will normally be lighter on the memory than something like KDE,
but if you're used to running many KDE applications (or Netscape or
Mozilla) anyway then you might not notice all that much difference.
Any window manager is smaller than Netscape...

Also, wmx makes heavy use of shaped windows and is therefore fairly
harsh on the X server: it will increase the X server's memory usage,
and perform badly if your X server is slow to redraw (which it may
be on an old laptop).  The main motivation for writing wm2 (and wmx)
was not to make the smallest, lightest, fastest window manager but
to make one that worked straightforwardly and looked nice.

Still, since you've got as far as you have, try it and see.  If you
find it's still a bit slow and you think the window manager is
partly to blame, there are many others -- Damion's preferred evilwm
I think is a bit extreme (sure, it makes a mere 15K executable on
Linux, but I like title bars!) -- but aewm, on which evilwm is
based, is both lighter than wmx and rather nice to look at:

   http://www.red-bean.com/~decklin/aewm/

Decklin's page also has a list of other minimal-stylee managers,
should you feel like trying the lot.  (Vanity note: wm2 and wmx
predate aewm and all of the others that Decklin lists, except of
course the old grandaddy 9wm.  Oh, and lwm probably turned up at
about the same time as wm2.)


Chris
__________________________________________________________________

If you are not the addressee of this confidential e-mail and any 
attachments, please delete it and inform the sender; unauthorised 
redistribution or publication is prohibited. 
Views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Citria Limited.
__________________________________________________________________